Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Volume 12 Issue 3 Issue 3 - Spring 2010 Article 10 2010 Copyright, Derivative Works, and the Economics of Complements Glynn S. Lunney Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Glynn S. Lunney Jr., Copyright, Derivative Works, and the Economics of Complements, 12 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 779 (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol12/iss3/10 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright, Derivative Works, and the Economics of Complements Glynn S. Lunney, Jr.* ABSTRACT From an economic perspective, copyright is irrational. In defining the scope of a copyright owner's exclusive rights, it treats situations that have similar economic consequences differently, as infringement in one case and not in the other, and situations that have radically different economic consequences similarly. This essay explores such area in which copyright exhibits economic irrationality: Copyright's treatment of complements. Where a lower price on a substitute reduces demand for the original, a lower price on a complement increases it. So defined, copyright addresses whether a copyright owner will control three different types of complements: (i) complementary products, such as MP3 players and VCRs, that increase the accessibility of copyright works; (ii) complementary uses of copyrighted works, such as radio airplay; and (iii) complementary reworkings of copyrighted works, such as movies based upon a novel. Although the economic consequences associated with these complements are identical, copyright treats these complements differently. Some are infringing, at least, some of the time; others are not. This essay explores this irrationality and proposes a unifying principle: Where a given use, reuse, or product is a strong complement to a copyrighted work, and would, in the absence of copyright's intervention, be available in a naturally competitive market, the copyright owner should not have the exclusive right to control such a use, reuse, or product. McGlinchey Stafford Professor of Law, Tulane University School of Law. Ph.D., Economics, Tulane University, 2006; M.A., Economics, Tulane University, 2002; J.D., Stanford Law School, 1990; B.S., Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1984. I would like to thank the participants at the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law's Symposium, Drawing Lines in the Digital Age: Copyright, Fair Use, and Derivative Works, as well as participants at a faculty symposium at Boston University School of Law for helpful feedback and criticism. 779 VANDERBILT J. OFENT. AND TECH. LAW [Vol. 12:4:779 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. COMPLEMENTS, COPYRIGHT, AND CONFUSION .......................... 784 II. THE ECONOMICS OF COMPLEMENTS .......................................... 790 III. REEXAMINING COPYRIGHT'S TREATMENT OF COMPLEMENTS ...810 IV. COPYRIGHT, COMPLEMENTS, AND DERIVATIVE WORKS ............814 In 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe published her novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin. With its anti-slavery message, the book became one of the best-selling novels of the nineteenth century,1 threw fuel on the debate between slave owners and those who opposed slavery, and may have helped ignite the Civil War. Indeed, President Abraham Lincoln, when he met Stowe at the start of the Civil War, is reputed to have said, "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this 2 great war." While President Lincoln was referring specifically to the Civil War, Stowe's novel started a copyright war as well. Immediately following the book's publication, a newspaper in Pennsylvania serialized Stowe's novel, translating it into German for its readers. Stowe sued, alleging copyright infringement. 3 The Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled against her, however, holding that a translation is not a copy.4 At the time, the Copyright Act gave a copyright owner the exclusive right to print, reprint, and vend her book, 5 but did not provide an exclusive right to translate or adapt a book. As the court wrote, "A translation may, in loose phraseology, be called a transcript or copy of her thoughts or conceptions, but in no correct sense can it be called a copy of her 6 book." In 1870, following the Civil War, Congress expressly provided authors with an exclusive right to dramatize and translate their 1. Gail K. Smith, The Sentimental Novel: The Example of Harriet Beecher Stowe, in THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICAN WOMEN'S WRITING 221, 221 (Dale M. Bauer & Philip Gould eds., 2001). 2. CHARLEs EDWARD STOWE & LYMAN BEECHER STOWE, HARRIET BEECHER STOWE: THE STORY OF HER LIFE 203 (1911). 3. Stowe v. Thomas, 23 F. Cas. 201 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1853) (No. 13,514). 4. Id. at 208. 5. Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, § 1, 4 Stat. 436, 436 (repealed 1909) ("TIhe author or authors of any book or books, map, chart, or musical composition .. .shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, and vending such book or books, map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, or engraving, in whole or in part, for the term of twenty-eight years...."). 6. Stowe, 23 F. Cas. at 208. 20101 THE ECONOMICS OF COMPLEMENTS copyrighted works as part of its second general revision 7 of the Copyright Act.8 Having recognized the right, Congress carried it forward in both the 1909 Act and the Copyright Act of 1976. In the 1909 Act, Congress tied the translation and adaptation right to the specific nature of the work: To translate the copyrighted work... if it be a literary work; to dramatize it if it be a nondramatic work; to convert it into a novel or other nondramatic work if it be a drama; a musical work; to complete, execute, and finish it if it be a to arrange or adapt it if it be 9 model or design for a work of art. In the current statute, the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress again retained the dramatization and translation right, yet eschewed the specific delineation of the 1909 Act. Instead, § 106(2) of the 1976 Copyright Act simply stated that a copyright owner has "the exclusive right0 ... to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work."'10 It then defined a "derivative work" as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."" The literal reach of the 1976 language is exceedingly broad. As Justice Story noted long ago, "[e]very book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." 12 Yet, despite its potential breadth, the derivative work right has not proven to be material very often. Aside from a handful of cases, the reproduction right has largely usurped the role that the derivative work right was supposed to play. Thus, when Judge Learned Hand famously elaborated the levels of abstraction framework for analyzing infringement in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.,13 the fact that the plaintiffs work was a play while the defendant's work was a movie, or, in other words, a 7. Since enacting the initial copyright statute in 1790, Congress has enacted four general revisions. The first in 1831; the second in 1870; the third in 1909; and the most recent in 1976. See Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 17 U.S.C.); Copyright Act of 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075 (repealed 1976); Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198 (repealed 1952); Act of Feb. 3, 1831, 4 Stat. 436 (repealed 1909). 8. Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 86, 16 Stat. 198, 212 ('That any citizen of the United States ... who shall be the author ... of any book ... shall ... have the sole liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, completing, copying, executing, finishing, and vending the same;... and authors may reserve the right to dramatize or to translate their own works."). 9. Copyright Act of 1909, ch. 320, § 1(b), 35 Stat. 1075, 1075. 10. 17 U.S.C. § 106(2) (2006). 11. 17 U.S.C. § 101 (definition of a "derivative work'). 12. Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (C.C.D. Mass. 1845) (No. 4,436). 13. 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930). VANDERBILT J. OFENT. AND TECH. LAW [Vol. 12:4:779 dramatization rather than a reproduction, of the plaintiffs play played no explicit role in Judge Hand's analysis of the infringement issue. Or more recently, Judge Patterson of the Southern District of New York held that a lexicon created from the Harry Potter books was a copy, and not a derivative work. 14 In his copyright treatise, Professor Mel Nimmer takes the position that the derivative work right is "completely 15 superfluous."' According to Nimmer, either enough of the plaintiffs original work is copied into the defendant's allegedly infringing work to establish infringement of the reproduction or public performance right, or it is not, and hence, no infringement, has occurred. 16 In the first case, the derivative work right is redundant. In the second, it is irrelevant. Yet, from an economics perspective, treating the derivative work right as either superfluous or irrelevant overlooks a potentially critically distinction. Had the defendant in Nichols used the plaintiffs play as the basis for a competing play set up in a theater next door, the defendant's play would, whether technically an infringement or not, undoubtedly have reduced demand for the plaintiffs play.